Michel Bettane and Thierry Desseauve: This massive wine is the only one that our team found extremely difficult to score. We find ourselves in unknown territory here because of the unique style of this vintage. The unusually high alcohol and the flamboyant flavors (Jean-Guillaume Prats called them “baroque”) set it completely apart from the others. But the perfect way in which it was vinified leaves no doubt. It would therefore be easy to brush it aside as not belonging in the Médoc, but we wouldn’t do that, knowing the power of the terroir always comes through with age, no matter what choices the winemaker made. But we have a hard time imagining how the terroir will express itself in 30 years. Pagodes de Cos, the “other” wine from the château, which has the added benefit of some sumptuous Cabernet Sauvignon, seems to be even more anchored in the terroir, and may be even more intellectually satisfying, despite slightly harder tannins. Depending on the day, 16–19

Michael Schuster: Dense, raisiny ripe fruit to smell; powerful, muscular wine with a mass of fruit, alcohol, extract, and tannin—huge and forceful. Abundant, dry, slightly raisiny fruit, the refreshing vitality gone, and a slightly fierce presence instead; long and complex in the mouth, spicy, potent, and persistent. New World comes to Bordeaux, with a considerable tenacity of flavor, and a marked bitter-chocolate finish. Jean-Guillaume Prats agrees that it will be controversial and argues that “the issue is a stylistic one, not a quality one.” I’m not at all sure you can really separate the two. It is very good of its type, I acknowledge, and that is how I have scored it. But that type is almost unrecognizable as claret as most of us know it (have known it?). I can’t see this ever being pleasurable for a palate like mine… It raises the issue, stuck with scores as we are, of quite how to mark such a wine. What are we marking for? One mark for power to impress: 20/20? One mark for drinkability: 14/20? And a third for investment potential? Oh, and possibly one for claret “typicity”? It certainly draws attention to itself, and perhaps that is a large part of its point. 2025–50+. 17.5/18